DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964

[comex]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
 I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical 
 annotation:
 {
 Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
 cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
 }

 Anyone want to run for Rulekeepor?  I no longer have trust in the
 document.  -Goethe

Please note that my actual published FLR does not contain any of these
outlandish annotations.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964

[comex]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 comex wrote:
 I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical 
 annotation:
 {
 Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
 cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
 }
 CoE:  ineffective, same situation as CFJ 2272 (without even the part
 that would be a legit annotation on its own, this time).

This one, however, is in the form of an annotation, albeit one with
legal effect (but annotations aren't usually inserted directly into
text, either.)  Admittedly this violates the requirement that the
annotation MUST include certain things, but MUST is MMI-defined to
mean SHALL.